Filter by keyword: Public perception of science and technology

Publications including this keyword are listed below.

132 publications found

Mar 17, 2025 Article

Citizens' perspectives on science communication

by Ionica Smeets, Charlotte B. C. M. Egger, Sicco de Knecht, Anne M. Land-Zandstra, Aletta L. Meinsma, Ward Peeters, Sanne Romp, Julie Schoorl, Winnifred Wijnker and Alex Verkade

The evolving landscape of science communication highlights a shift from traditional dissemination to participatory engagement. This study explores Dutch citizens' perspectives on science communication, focusing on science capital, public engagement, and communication goals. Using a mixed-methods approach, it combines survey data (“n”=376) with focus group (“n”=66) insights. Findings show increasing public interest in participating in science, though barriers like knowledge gaps persist. Trust-building, engaging adolescents, and integrating science into society were identified as key goals. These insights support the development of the Netherlands' National Centre of Expertise on Science and Society and provide guidance for inclusive, effective science communication practices.

Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025

Mar 10, 2025 Article

Wit meets wisdom: the relationship between satire and anthropomorphic humor on scientists' likability and legitimacy

by Alexandra L. Frank, Michael A. Cacciatore, Sara K. Yeo and Leona Yi-Fan Su

We conducted an experiment examining public response to scientists' use of different types of humor (satire, anthropomorphism, and a combination of the two) to communicate about AI on Twitter/X. We found that humor led to increased perceptions of humor, measured as increased mirth. Specifically, we found that combining anthropomorphism and satire elicited the highest levels of mirth. Further, reported mirth was positively associated with the perceived likability of the scientist who posted the content. Our findings indicate that mirth mediated the effects of the humor types on publics' perceptions that the scientist on social media was communicating information in an appropriate and legitimate way. Overall, this suggests that scientists can elicit mirth by using combining satire and anthropomorphic humor, which can enhance publics' perceptions of scientists. Importantly, publics' responses to harsh satire were not examined. Caution should be exercised when using satire due to potential backfire effects.

Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025

Feb 04, 2025 Article

Can science comics aid lay audiences' comprehension of forensic science?

by Isabelle Baxter, Andy Ridgway, Heather Doran, Niamh Nic Daeid, Rachel Briscoe, Joe McAlister and Daniel Barnard

Forensic science has become a standard feature in criminal investigations and trials. However, it can often be a challenge for experts in courtrooms to communicate scientific evidence clearly to lay audiences through verbal expert witness testimony alone. The Evidence Chamber is an interactive experience engaging public audiences with forensic science through a mock trial. This study explores the effectiveness of using comics to support the understanding of forensic science by non-experts. The results suggest comics were effective at aiding the audiences' comprehension of forensic science evidence and in the future comic-based aids could support juries' comprehension of scientific evidence.

Volume 24 • Issue 01 • 2025

Dec 16, 2024 Editorial

Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments

by Anne Reif, Lars Guenther and Hiromi M. Yokoyama

This special issue examines public (dis)trust in science amidst evolving digital media environments, marked by the increasing prevalence of online information sources about scientific topics such as climate change and COVID-19. This editorial summarizes the nine publications that are part of the special issue and shows how they address different aspects of public (dis)trust in science in the context of digital media environments. Furthermore, we reflect on the selection and production process and give an outlook as to where future research could be heading. The papers highlight various perspectives on (dis)trust in science in digital media environments to foster a deeper understanding of the role of digital communication.

Volume 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments

Dec 16, 2024 Article

(Un)certainty in science and climate change: a longitudinal analysis (2014–2022) of narratives about climate science on social media in Brazil (Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter)

by Roberta Lima, Andre L. Belem, Diógenes Lycarião, Thaiane Oliveira, Simone Evangelista, Luisa Massarani and Marcelo Alves

This article examines climate change discourse on Brazilian social media from 2014 to 2022 and use a longitudinal approach, analyzing discourse, scientific authority, and eco-emotions on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. Methods include TF-IDF for feature extraction, sentiment analysis with VADER, and Named Entity Recognition (NER). A Ridge Classifier was trained on 557 manually classified samples. Findings show no significant increase in challenges to scientific authority or skepticism, but reveal a subtle shift towards using uncertainty as a rhetorical tool to undermine trust in scientific discourse.

Volume 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments

Dec 16, 2024 Article

Intermediaries in the limelight: how exposure to trust cues in content about science affects public trust in science

by Lars Guenther, Justin T. Schröder, Anne Reif, Janise Brück, Monika Taddicken, Peter Weingart and Evelyn Jonas

A potential decline in public trust in science has often been linked to digital media environments, which serve as intermediaries of trust by providing cues for why (not) to trust science. This study examines whether exposure to trust cues in content affects public trust in science (across population groups). The study employs a mixed-method design, combining content analysis (“n” = 906) and panel survey data (“n” = 1,030) in Germany. The findings reveal that exposure to trust cues in certain media predicts public trust in science. Variations across trust groups indicate a nuanced nature of trust-assessing processes in digital media environments.

Volume 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments

Dec 16, 2024 Article

Who, if not science, can you trust to guide you through a crisis? The relationship between public trust in science and exposure to established and alternative online sources in times of crisis

by Fabian Zimmermann, Christine Petersen and Matthias Kohring

In light of global crises such as COVID-19, we argue that people’s trust in science drives their media choices in the digital sphere. The results from a German online survey show that individuals who perceive scientists as trustworthy in terms of ability, benevolence, and integrity, confidently expect science to provide accurate knowledge and guide reasonable decision-making in times of crisis. In turn, these positive trusting expectations towards science increase the use of established journalistic and scientific online sources for accessing scientific information. In contrast, people with low or no trust in science tend to resort to the messenger Telegram and ‘alternative’ online media outlets. Interestingly, the individual need for orientation does not amplify this association between trust in science and digital media use in a crisis situation.

Volume 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments

Dec 16, 2024 Article

Trust in science, trust in ChatGPT? How Germans think about generative AI as a source in science communication

by Mike S. Schäfer, Bastian Kremer, Niels G. Mede and Liliann Fischer

Generative AI like ChatGPT has been diagnosed to fundamentally impact different realms of life. This includes science communication, where GenAI tools are becoming important sources of science-related content for many people. This raises the question of whether people trust GenAI as a source in this field, a question that has not been answered sufficiently yet. Adapting a model developed by Roberts et al. [2013] and utilizing survey data from the German Science Barometer 2023, we find that Germans are rather sceptical about and do not strongly trust GenAI in science communication. Structural equation modelling shows that respondents' trust in GenAI as a source in science communication is driven strongly by their general trust in science, which is largely driven by their knowledge about science and the perception that science improves quality of life.

Volume 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments

Dec 16, 2024 Article

Public perceptions of trustworthiness and authenticity towards scientists in controversial scientific fields

by Markus Schug, Helena Bilandzic and Susanne Kinnebrock

This study investigates public perceptions of trustworthiness and authenticity regarding scientists engaged in controversial and less controversial fields with a cross-sectional survey of a German sample (“N” = 1007). Results indicate that scientists in controversial fields like COVID-19 or climate change are perceived as less trustworthy and authentic compared to scientists in less controversial fields or scientists without specification of their field. Additionally, we found that science-related media consumption shaped people´s trustworthiness and authenticity perceptions towards scientists. Our analysis points out how public perceptions of scientists vary if these scientists research controversial areas, actively participating in public (and media) life.

Volume 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments

Dec 16, 2024 Article

“I think it gave me a little bit of mistrust”: exploring trust in COVID-19 science among college students

by Ch'Ree Essary

As the late teen and early adulthood years have been identified as a period in life where opinions regarding politics are formed, it is important to understand how the highly politicized science issue — the COVID-19 pandemic — may have influenced young adults’ trust in science and how they come to know the accuracy of science information. In order to explore these topics, this study employed a series of focus groups with college students (N = 22). Findings show that while focus group participants were largely trusting of science and science institutions, they were wary of government and politician interference in science and scientists who lack the integrity and benevolence to act in the best interests of the public.

Volume 23 • Issue 09 • 2024 • Special Issue: Public (dis)trust in science in digital media environments